AFA labor discussion (Work related)

[PITbull]

Why, specifically, do you believe this? What alternative do you suggest other than metaphors? How does the union get out of sections that have already been agreed to? Believe me, I'm all ears. Help me understand. What, specifically, should we be doing different to get out of closed sections? Pitbull should be offering up an experienced opinion right about now.

What is the tactical advantage that your position offers?
[/quote


New negotiators can sit down with the company and open those sections because they know that the TA will fail. The company does not want to go through an exercise where the entire TA would fail. So, that's the argument a new team can bring to the table. Having the old folks there will not convince the company of anything...that's why these folks closed the sections.

I believe the company got the clear message that the f/as are not satisfied with their leadership, and obviiously, if the f/as are able to organize themselves to oust every lec administaration, than they know the message is the TA will fail. If you have still the same negotiatiors in place, you guys only did half the job. That sends a different message to the company.

Get smart people, and get gutsy. Step out and clean the entire house,...that's when it will be in order.

 

[Travelpro72]

The mediator specifically stated he will not open closed sections. Right or wrong, his job is to wrap up five years of stalled negotiations. Play games and go for a recall. Whats another few years? Im dure the company would love it. Not a flores supporter at all but understand the process. We deserve better. Better negotiators and better sections now closed.

 

[FlyGuyBWI]

The mediator specifically stated he will not open closed sections. Right or wrong, his job is to wrap up five years of stalled negotiations. Play games and go for a recall. Whats another few years? Im dure the company would love it. Not a flores supporter at all but understand the process. We deserve better. Better negotiators and better sections now closed.

I may not be fully versed in the NMB mediation process, but generally speaking, a Mediator is there to help bridge the gap between the parties -- not to dictate the direction of the negotiations. If the parties refuse to agree, there is simply nothing a Mediator can do except report to both sides that there is no agreement. So, again, it is my belief, that regardless of who the players are at the table, as long as each party to the negotiations is moving forward towards an agreement in GOOD FAITH, the Mediator should have no reason to declare an impasse. In the same vien, if opening previously closed sections creates a path towards a fully realized agreement, the Mediator should not object, but make this part of the process of moving the the parties toward the ultimate goal.

 

[Onestep2flt]

I may not be fully versed in the NMB mediation process, but generally speaking, a Mediator is there to help bridge the gap between the parties -- not to dictate the direction of the negotiations. If the parties refuse to agree, there is simply nothing a Mediator can do except report to both sides that there is no agreement. So, again, it is my belief, that regardless of who the players are at the table, as long as each party to the negotiations is moving forward towards an agreement in GOOD FAITH, the Mediator should have no reason to declare an impasse. In the same vien, if opening previously closed sections creates a path towards a fully realized agreement, the Mediator should not object, but make this part of the process of moving the the parties toward the ultimate goal.

After a fair amount of google keystrokes I would have to agree with you flyguy. I fell upon the government site for the NMB regarding mediation under the railway labor act. Here is a direct quote regarding the situating we are discussing: (Bold added by me)
"When an airline or railroad carrier and a union do not reach agreement in direct negotiations, the National Mediation Board (NMB) provides a mediator to assist the parties in negotiating a new or revised collective bargaining agreement. The NMB does not mediate disputes between employees, between individuals and their employers, or between unions."

"In the mediation process, the NMB does not dictate the terms of an agreement or force agreement between the parties. Nothing in the mediation process prevents the parties from reaching agreement on their own at any time."

It also talks about recessing a case. It indicates it is a tool used to apply pressure on the parties to come to closer in terms of specific reasons related to the facts in the case. I suppose one could argue that that changing your negotiators are specific to the case but I am not sure that is the intent. It further states that the MNB does not get involved with issues involving the union or employees. It is there specifically to as you stated bridge the gap between the parties.

I guess I would just suggest one more time that you guys need outside council not associated with AFA to help in this case.

 

[Travelpro72]

Being recessed by the mediator is a WIN for the company while the f/a group sits for the period with NO negotiations at all and nothing to vote on. The mediator also MOST CERTAINLY can refuse closed sections to be opened. The mediator is there not to negotiate for the union or company and that is correct but he IS there to make sure it moves along. Flores and Austin WILL be replaced. Make no mistake about it but they are not going to be replaced now. There is a lot that can and can't be said but to believe that Terry Graff or Cathy Cambell support Mike or are afraid to take on the task of removing him isn't true. There is a process that should be followed to protect the will of the membership. The union got their ducks in a row within their locals. NOW is not the time to "shoot from the hip" if you will.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

I have a really hard time understanding why the company would agree to reopen closed sections. Even if the faces change what kind of leverage do they bring to convince the company to go back to the drawing board? Shouting at them?

If the company does not want to open closed sections they do not have to.

A mediator has no power to reopen sections just because we ask him to. Even if the company was charmed by the new faces into reopening sections, what would it demand in return?

 

[Onestep2flt]

Here is a different look at this. This all started with a grassroots effort to remove your negotiating team. There was a recall of Flores and Miss Austin from a petition from this effort. The recall failed mostly due to if I understand correctly from reading here is some creative interpretation of of the petition signatures. Also, you had local presidents in place that gave the appearances that they supported Flores. This was discussed in depth here so I won't rehash it. Then came the recall of the locals in Philly and general election debacle in Charlotte. Now you supposedly have people in place that are not friends of Flores. Based on these facts here is what I would probably do. Start another push to remove your negotiating committee through petition again. I don't know all the procedures involved, but even the MEC president confirmed they can't ignore this if you have enough numbers. From what has been discussed here I gather that a meeting must be called at the point when signatures have been validated. Now, you have to do this right. No you do this or else language. Just plain and simple recall the entire negotiating committee and the MEC president. Now, if your new leadership is worth anything they will act on this. If not you will see another round just like the last. This is your union and you need to finish the job that the new leadership has seemingly backed down from.

I understand what has been said here about fears of being recessed by a mediator. However the risk of this is more easy to mitigate than the risk of just putting all hopes on just waiting to vote it down. They are telling you they don't want a unnecessary delay of being recessed but are willing to wait it out with negotiators that don't have your interest at heart to finish quashing every section in your contract. It is true that you may have to wait regardless to vote it down anyway. Why not try to put someone else in place to finish the process and have less to fix later on. If the new leadership means what they say they will still vote to not send it to the member if it has ANY FLAWED SECTIONS. Those sections that were already closed that everyone is worried about.

Another direct quote from the NMB website: "The NMB has no authority to investigate or remedy employee grievances against a union or other internal-union matters such as inter-union agreements, inter-union seniority matters, union mergers, ratification of union-management agreements, to strike or not, election of union officials, the conduct of union officials, the application of union dues (or agency fees), and the application of a union’s constitution and bylaws." Anotherwors they Should stay out of the process to change negotiators.

Remember the membership asked for this initially and not the union leadership. The leadership would be acting on the memberships will. The leadership would not be the cause of any delay. I don't see why a mediator would recess you for that if the process was done in a minimal amount of time. Surely, you have qualified people that could step in and start negotiating on your behalf. The leadership can still follow their plan to reject the tentative agreement in order to fix the flawed sections. In the process you would already have negotiators in place that would be acceptable to the membership with less to fix later.

Just don't put all your hope in one thing.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

If the new leadership means what they say they will still vote to not send it to the member if it has ANY FLAWED SECTIONS.

This is beginning to sound like a company shill. If we proceed, as we are, what prevents the union from recommending voting this down? What prevents the membership from expressing their will by voting it down? What it sounds like, is (since you are not part of the membership) you would prefer to leave what is already in place and sow internal dissent. It sounds very much like you do not trust the membership. You do not seem too concerned about bringing the company into the debate, with their inadequate offers but more concerned about focusing on creating AFA internal dissent.

Those sections that were already closed that everyone is worried about.

So what you're saying is bring it to a vote and we will vote it down and be able to open all sections, not just some.
It is up to those of us who are in the union to take the practical steps to get where we want to be. The mandate for change is clear.
What is the most practical and fastest method is also clear.
I appreciate your sincere concern but I feel you like the "grand vision" over a practical way to get from point A to point B that many of us, who have actually suffered under this process would like to enunciate to the company.

What you advocate is delay. Delay for me is to delay an industry standard contract.

Bring this mess to a swift and conclusive end and include the company in the debacle (there never seems to be a mention of the company in your posts).

What I believe is that the people involved have ALREADY given themselves enough rope. We are way past that. The membership is alive and well and looking for substantial change. I want a say in voting this contract down.
Give me that say. Give it to me sooner rather than later.

 

[Onestep2flt]

This is beginning to sound like a company shill. If we proceed, as we are, what prevents the union from recommending voting this down? What prevents the membership from expressing their will by voting it down? What it sounds like, is (since you are not part of the membership) you would prefer to leave what is already in place and sow internal dissent. It sounds very much like you do not trust the membership. You do not seem too concerned about bringing the company into the debate, with their inadequate offers but more concerned about focusing on creating AFA internal dissent.

If you are speaking of the union leadership NOTHING should prevent them from from recommending that the membership vote it down. It is very clear from what we discussed here that no matter what happens from here that any tentative agreement will still have the flawed sections. The leadership had better recommend it be voted down. What we are failing to discuss is that their are two MEC's that have two different agendas. To ignore this fact is a disservice to ALL the membership. My question is what happens when east leadership votes against recommending this and west votes to recommend? That might not happen but it could. You are working on a joint contract correct? I don't have the answer so please let us know. I just think it unfair to not consider this. Also, NOTHING should prevent the membership expressing their will either. However, it is up to the individual flight attendant to vote the way they feel that is best for them. You have to expect that for some that their needs may be met while voting yes. It is human nature to vote for your needs. It would be nice if everyone would consider the whole contract and everyones needs as a whole, but it is just not reality. It again would also be unfair to not consider once again that you have coworkers in Phoenix that are going to a food pantry at the union office. You have to take these folks into consideration. You must again consider your percentage of people that actually vote has been very low for a long time for a lot of different reasons. THE COMPANY must indeed be brought into the debate. This is done by hitting them from all directions. Why, if you are serious about change keep the negotiating team in place? Like I said before pinning your hopes on just getting you to vote it down is pretty short sighted. I want the membership to consider all these possibilities. I don't want the membership to blindly follow what new leadership from one base says without considering all these facts anymore than I want them to listen to me without asking questions of the process. You don't need me or anyone else to create dissent within AFA because it already exists without any outside help. If you equate my asking legitimate questions as not trusting the membership I don't know what to say to you. I would hope the union leadership would trust the membership with all the information so they can make an intelligent decision on their own.

So what you're saying is bring it to a vote and we will vote it down and be able to open all sections, not just some.
It is up to those of us who are in the union to take the practical steps to get where we want to be. The mandate for change is clear.
What is the most practical and fastest method is also clear.
I appreciate your sincere concern but I feel you like the "grand vision" over a practical way to get from point A to point B that many of us, who have actually suffered under this process would like to enunciate to the company.

What I said was that while you might not have any choice but to wait for what the leadership say is to just wait for the membership to vote a tentative agreement down, you should not sit still on replacing your negotiating team now if it can be done quickly and smoothly. I understand the fear of being recessed is real. However, there must be a way to finish the rest of the contract with new negotiators in place without that happening. My thought is they will be able to get closer to what the overall contract SHOULD look like. Your leadership is already waiting around to vote not to send a tentative out to the membership when it is finished up thus already causing a DELAY! Do you think it will be fixed at warp speed? I don't claim to know the intricacies of negotiations so I do not know what you can and can not do. That said, the leadership is already planning to delay by sending it back to be reworked. Why not have someone there that will negotiate the remaining sections that are not closed to better meet the members needs. If you continue with Flores and team and then have to send for reworking you would have to most likely fix more sections. If you have someone there that will complete these section with the members in mind you might not have nearly the DELAY you speak of as there is less to fix. I emphasize again maybe this is too simplistic but it better follows the will of the members and actually minimizes delays by having less to fix. Maybe that is not the way it works but it still creates no further delay than the leadership of on base suggests already to have new leadership already in place. I don't know why you Merrily let Flores continue on if there is a possibility to remove him now! Just thinking outside the box here. You make a good point that the most practical path should be taken. I have said all along to give your new leadership a chance and time. This is only the leadership from one base. You have how many? Sometimes they don't all agree. You must be honest with people and give them all information good or bad. The union leadership as a whole sometimes glosses over the facts just as much as management.

Bring this mess to a swift and conclusive end and include the company in the debacle (there never seems to be a mention of the company in your posts).

What I believe is that the people involved have ALREADY given themselves enough rope. We are way past that. The membership is alive and well and looking for substantial change. I want a say in voting this contract down.
Give me that say. Give it to me sooner rather than later.

I am pretty sure I have said plenty about management. I post in other places besides the AFA board or US Airways board for that matter. I would have to sift through the posts on AFA board to see if I have mentioned management here. What I do know is that ALL my posts here on the AFA board is in defense of the individual flight attendant. I am pretty sure I have been nothing but fair in trying to explain what amounts to my own opinion here. I am no than anyone else here. You are right management should be brought into the debate. They do a good job of not understanding that their employees are their best assets. We can argue this all day long if you wish. In the end I only want what is best for ALL flight attendants and all employees for that matter. If I sound like anything different this is not my intent. I don't want anyone to believe that outside opinion by me or anyone else is shilling for the company. I have noticed even PITBULL is being ignored and she was there and knows what was going on from the inside. You should not discount ideas that differ from your own and somehow lump them into ideas that came from management. You should of course question anything from anyone on this board. That is why I keep advocating asking question for yourself. Take that for what is worth.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

I understand the fear of being recessed is real. However, there must be a way to finish the rest of the contract with new negotiators in place without that happening.

Here is where we have a fundamental difference about how to do things. The above sentence does not address in any practical,specific or useful way what needs to be done about a bad contract with bad closed sections other than with a vague promise.
On the other hand I can tell you exactly and in practical terms what would happen if this contract is swiftly brought up for a vote.
Using the West as a straw man is a scare tactic. Perhaps someone who knows definitively can inform us what happens if one side votes yes and the other side votes no. My best guess is that both sides (East and West) must agree to the terms of a joint contract or it's back to the drawing board.

Bring it to a swift vote, discredit the people who negotiated it AND discredit the company all at the same time.

 

[Travelpro72]

If Mike and Carol were recalled now and allowed by the mediator without a recess it would take quite a while to get the replacements up to speed on everything. Everything is quite a lot. I'm telling you, the federal mediator brought in to push this turd along is NOT going to sit idle while we play musical chairs at this point in time. A lot has been said about what AFA and it's members could and couldn't do over the past year. Well my friends, look around at what you see. Regardless of opinion, swift change and movement has occured. All at the hands of the dues paying members who demanded control of their locals. This contract being hashed out is already a FAIL to the majority of members. If there is someone out there who believes in desperation that management will throw a big raise to the members to ratify you'll be waiting a long time. This team believes you make more than you should already so take it from there. This contract will get finished and sent to the LECP's. I know the LECP's will have lots to look over but trust me, IT WON"T PASS! ! ! ! ! It will be voted down, sent back and members will be asked what they didn't like. The JNC will go from there. THEN and only THEN should new individuals with a fresh vision explore different avenues. Recalling though a #$# dream for many here (myself included) isn't going to happen right now. And that has NOTHING to do with the LECP's backing off. It's playing smart. 😉

 

[cactusgirl]

Here is where we have a fundamental difference about how to do things. The above sentence does not address in any practical,specific or useful way what needs to be done about a bad contract with bad closed sections other than with a vague promise.
On the other hand I can tell you exactly and in practical terms what would happen if this contract is swiftly brought up for a vote.
Using the West as a straw man is a scare tactic. Perhaps someone who knows definitively can inform us what happens if one side votes yes and the other side votes no. My best guess is that both sides (East and West) must agree to the terms of a joint contract or it's back to the drawing board.

Bring it to a swift vote, discredit the people who negotiated it AND discredit the company all at the same time.

If anyone is thinking the west is going to overwhelmingly vote yes for what seems to be a horrendous TA thus far then they are thinking wrong. MANY of us see the handwriting on the wall and will be voting no.

My understanding is the TA gets ratified if the majority of the collective group (both east and west) vote yes. It's not done separately. Since the East outnumbers the west, then in theory they really control the direction of ratification.

Many on the west are worried that the East will go right to the compensation section and if the dollar amount is right, they will vote yes. I happen to think otherwise. Many east FA's have been around far too long to fall for the "what's my compensation" game and ignore the other print in a contract. That much I do know. I've have numerous East jump seaters commuting who have all said pretty much that they are voting no on the first one based on what little they've been told the TA contains by their leadership.

I think there is one thing that many of us can agree on, both east and west, our "leadership" isn't listening to their members. That included the people at international. The proof will be in the pudding as they say when a TA finally does come out.

I also have to agree with Travel, there is no way that the company will come up with great pay rates to get this to pass. They don't care and as long as the pilots are separate they could care less if we merge or not.

 

[reserve59]

If anyone is thinking the west is going to overwhelmingly vote yes for what seems to be a horrendous TA thus far then they are thinking wrong. MANY of us see the handwriting on the wall and will be voting no.

My understanding is the TA gets ratified if the majority of the collective group (both east and west) vote yes. It's not done separately. Since the East outnumbers the west, then in theory they really control the direction of ratification.

Many on the west are worried that the East will go right to the compensation section and if the dollar amount is right, they will vote yes. I happen to think otherwise. Many east FA's have been around far too long to fall for the "what's my compensation" game and ignore the other print in a contract. That much I do know. I've have numerous East jump seaters commuting who have all said pretty much that they are voting no on the first one based on what little they've been told the TA contains by their leadership.

I think there is one thing that many of us can agree on, both east and west, our "leadership" isn't listening to their members. That included the people at international. The proof will be in the pudding as they say when a TA finally does come out.

I also have to agree with Travel, there is no way that the company will come up with great pay rates to get this to pass. They don't care and as long as the pilots are separate they could care less if we merge or not.

 

[safety stud]

If anyone is thinking the west is going to overwhelmingly vote yes for what seems to be a horrendous TA thus far then they are thinking wrong. MANY of us see the handwriting on the wall and will be voting no.

My understanding is the TA gets ratified if the majority of the collective group (both east and west) vote yes. It's not done separately. Since the East outnumbers the west, then in theory they really control the direction of ratification.

Many on the west are worried that the East will go right to the compensation section and if the dollar amount is right, they will vote yes. I happen to think otherwise. Many east FA's have been around far too long to fall for the "what's my compensation" game and ignore the other print in a contract. That much I do know. I've have numerous East jump seaters commuting who have all said pretty much that they are voting no on the first one based on what little they've been told the TA contains by their leadership.

I think there is one thing that many of us can agree on, both east and west, our "leadership" isn't listening to their members. That included the people at international. The proof will be in the pudding as they say when a TA finally does come out.

I also have to agree with Travel, there is no way that the company will come up with great pay rates to get this to pass. They don't care and as long as the pilots are separate they could care less if we merge or not.

First and foremost..
With all that is at stake... No one is taking the relationship between East/West as a dividing issue.
Nor, will it...
Your concern that the east has the majority of numbers is correct, however that would only come to issue should the union allow a T/A to come to the F/A's. As MF has stated many times... He wouldn't put an agreement out to the membership he felt wouldn't have a chance of passing. With that said it wouldn't matter what the LECP's have to say about it. Remember, it's the negotiating committee that must first come to an agreement with the company before the locals have a chance to look at it, much less vote to allow it to come to a ratification with it's members.
Now, with the prospect of getting new negotiators to the table is another issue. One, I feel, would be a great injustice to the real issue. The company knows, AFA's CBA becomes amendible 01.01.12. They (the company) for what ever reason decided to allow some sort of negotiations with AFA over the last many years. Though, it was at a snails pace... some areas of the contract were closed... Placing a new negotiating team into power, would only delay the confrontation that will eventually have to take place... That between the AFA(East/West) and the Company... Remember it is the company that has abused its contractual issues that keep both sides seperate and poor. The west with 1993 CBA and east with BK II governing... It is 2011 for gods sake... How much longer do you want to continue the madness?
Don't allow the internal strife divide you to your ultimate goal...
A mediator is in place for a reason... Allow the present negotiating team to do it's job... Come 12.31.11 at midnight... should NO T/A be reached... Go into the 30 day cooling off period, and work the process... These are serious labor negotiations dealing with thousands of people... But more importantly the viability of DP's so called synergy friendly company... Put it up to the process and see if AFA's "CHAOS" will speed things along...
Reality is Reality...
It is time for you to put up, or shut up...
Stop the delay... and prepare for the next level..

Just my opinion...

 

[Travelpro72]

Up until the company came back with their proposal Mike Flores felt the t/a was suitable. Regardless of what Mike feels, once it gets to the LECP's they will NOT send it out. I'm counting on that.